Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Perjury in the Amero Case Revisited in Finer Detail

In a previous post, I speculated as to whether or not a site that was viewed by one of our victims may have been something far more innocent than testified to by the prosecution. Upon closer inspection of the details, there may be a more compelling disconnect than first speculated upon here.

In cross-examining the class rosters, the witness whose testimony is ignored by police actually shared the (approx.) 10 to 11 a.m. Language Arts class with Student four. I had mistakenly thought it was the homeroom class early in the morning that our mystery girl was part of. [The class schedule is just making sense as we piece it together from scraps of information.]

Certain parts of that previous theory fit but Student Four would have had to have really mixed up the time that he claims to have seen women in bathing suits on Amero's screen. And the police report insists that the porn storm occurs between 9:24 and 11:11 a.m.

The fact that upon closer inspection the girl's testimony is not thrown out because she's outside the window of interest is all the more perplexing. Clearly she describes a very similar site as S4 and insists it is not pornographic. As a girl, she may be exposed to beauty or women's magazines that bare skin but have no pornographic connotation. A boy may see it erotically but that doesn't make it porn.

The fact that police cited a women's health link as a pornographic destination Amero visited only further erodes their credibility. The site femalesexual.com is actively protesting being called pornographic in the Amero case. They are not. And another site is also protesting, insisting they are simply a dating related venue. The Norwich Police have managed to insult legitimate web enterprise by not checking the facts.

It appears that the school, police, and court were hoodwinked into confusing the label as the thing. And despite rather bland descriptions of pictures of nude people standing around, no one ever questioned how such things could be corrupting. In fact they might be little more than medical illustrations of people showing symptoms.

The kids called it porn but the sites may be no more than dating, women's health, and porn sites all of which may have been connected to the account and not Julie's co-incidental activity. Yet these kids insist it was purely porn presumably because of their vast reservoir of experience with the genre. We don't know what they saw or imagined it to be.

The fact that the officers never investigated the claims of the students beyond getting caught up in the indignation of the porn assertions speaks poorly for their testimony. In the tsunami of provocative links found in the computer logs, didn't anyone ever wonder how a teacher could page through so many pages if she were not trying to protect the kids?

But let's not forget our one witness who describes in such blistering detail the sex act that deviates from everyone else's testimony. Did he really see this or did he just relate the biggest fish story told in seventh grade in 2004?


Anonymous said...

Also worth noting:
Mr Napp the class teacher states that he that he found a site which was a "discussion board about lesbians". The prosecutor Smith refers to this page as "concerning ... lesbian issues". Yet the only site referred to by name is cheatinglesbians[dot]com, a site clearly not aimed at a female audience: 'No Boys Allowed! Except You!', the site proclaims.

Frank Krasicki said...

If we are willing to drop the pretense that anyone was even remotely in danger of having their morals impaired then we can look at what they were in danger of actually being exposed to.

The idea of a "cheating" lesbian would make that lesbian a poster child for the religious right. Imagine a lesbian gone straight! Is this what the police are defending kids from?

Or a woman's health site where a breast exam might be hysterically mistaken as a Hustler centerfold by a crazed school administration that is no smarter than a drooling twelve year old boy with a hard-on?

The police took an unfortunate event that is little more than embarrassing and turned it into a ugly and deadly episode.

And of course we are now being told that the fools who created this mess are the victims. We need to feel sorry for them and find ways to exit this fiasco while letting them save face.

Yeah. THEY need to save face! When is the last time a blood-thirsty prosecutor let an innocent accused person save face or exit gracefully? The students exposure to our system of justice did more to corrupt their values than anything Julie Amero did.

The people who conjure up harm and malice and intent where ALL of the facts point to a far simpler explanation need to have their heads examined at their own expense and only then should they be able to reapply for their jobs.

The biggest boobs in Norwich are the idiots who never did the jobs they were entrusted to do.

And the biggest shame in Norwich are all of the complicit teachers and co-workers who have yet to defend this woman's honor by speaking up.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, several of the sites mentioned in the transcript do not contain graphic pornographic images: two are for sites selling sex toys and sexy underwear, another is a site dedicated to the serious exploration of the subject of female sexuality, and only has a picture of a naked buttock. The cheatinglesbians[dot]com site does at least contain explicit pornography, but it is pornography intended for a male audience. The prosecution was never challenged as to whether this was what they took to be a discussion board/lesbian issues site. If it was, then this was a serious blunder. The prosecution was also never challenged to explain how a married, female, pregnant teacher would be likely to browse for lesbian porn, shop for sex toys, look for a date and book a cruise in front of a class of kids. Even if you don't have any knowledge of adware and pop-ups it seems totally implausible, yet no one ever stated this in court.
I don't believe a few thumbnail pornographic images can impair the morals of children, but my real point is that it's totally inconceivable that Julie sat and typed in those sites that day. The facts as you say point to a far simpler explanation.

Anonymous said...

I am so glad you are still covering/commenting on the Amero case, Frank. I am constantly bringing it up with colleagues at school and it's astounds me that some teachers STILL haven't heard of her wretched case. I am a little frustrated at the lack of information available, I want to know EVERYTHING about this case--I want redemption for poor Julie and her husband...but I suppose her new council are feverishly trying to gather evidence and information for her appeal, I'll just have to wait. I trust that on the 29th the truth will come out and the corrupt feebs in the Norwich courts and schools will have to answer for their odious malfeasance.

Karen W.

Frank Krasicki said...


There are dozens of professionals who are volunteering time and energy behind the scenes to keep the story alive and to educate the public.

The conundrum that is the Julie Amero case is that in addition to being the most severe injustice any of us have seen, it is also the most strange combination of incompetence, malpractice, and mass stupidity on record.

I publish what I can without violating a lot of very sensitive areas. And the law in Connecticut puts every teacher at risk. If they aren't paying attention they should be. It requires no imagination to see a teacher attacked by a moralist parent or administrator who hates their teaching style.

There is currently a murder suspect who "might" get 25 years in jail. That's how whack this thing is.

Anonymous said...

Hey Frank,
You know what it is? It's that, for the life of me, I can't find ANY commentary about this case written BY Connecticut teachers, in reaction to it. Sure, there's lots of outrage expressed by techies all over the world-even & thank the g-ddess for them, and a few editorials from some CT papers...but for the most part it seems (maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places...but I doubt it) that there is SILENCE in CT teacher-land...and sort of this "ooh that's TERRIBLE, poor woman!" sort of response when I speak to colleagues about this. Is it b/c Julie was a sub and not a Union-supported teacher? I think CT teachers are operating under an unrealistic cocoon of safety and ennui, an "it can never happen to me" attitude. it's whack, all right. The whole shebang is whack. Oh, and BTW I saw that Chicago young film-makers project a couple of weeks ago and sent that clip to one of the Superintendent liasons in Stamford (where I work) telling them it's a must-see for all teachers in Stamford...so far "no commento."


Anonymous said...

As horrid as the Julie Amero case is, it should suprise no one.

This is the way things are
handled in Connecticut.

MILFORD — In a move largely considered anti-climatic, Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney L. Mark Hurley resigned Thursday amid allegations that he stole money intended for crime victims as well as thousands of dollars from his own union.

Last week, Hurley admitted through his lawyer to stealing between $18,000 and $21,000 from the state prosecutor’s union, the Connecticut Association of Prosecutors. Hurley had been the longtime treasurer of the union.

The move, coming before the completion of an internal investigation that could have resulted in Hurley losing his job, is expected to save his state pension.

Hurley, 47, is eligible to begin collecting a pension at 55.

….Hurley intends to make full restitution to the union.

Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane(the boss of Ms Amero’s prosecutor) said that as a result of Hurley’s resignation, the internal investigation is closed.


In Connecticut you can steal 20,000 and pay it back and not only is all forgiven but you get to keep your pension.

But if you fail to pull the plug on a computer or throw a coat over it you face 40 yrs and being labeled a “sex offender”

Isn’t Connecticut “Grand”?